Re: Check constraints on partition parents only?

From: Nikhil Sontakke <nikkhils(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alex Hunsaker <badalex(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Jerry Sievers <gsievers19(at)comcast(dot)net>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Check constraints on partition parents only?
Date: 2011-07-29 11:41:43
Message-ID: CANgU5ZfUvsfK-km7kOS+ThxheykU_jWsdD1u9PUC2m_dXxoO0w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

>>Any preferences for the name?
>> connoinh
>> conisonly
>> constatic or confixed
>
> I'd probably pick conisonly from those choices.
>

The use of "\d" inside psql will show ONLY constraints without any
embellishments similar to normal constraints. E.g.

ALTER TABLE ONLY a ADD CONSTRAINT achk CHECK (FALSE);

ALTER TABLE a ADD CONSTRAINT bchk CHECK (b > 0);

psql=# \d a
Table "public.a"
Column | Type | Modifiers
--------+---------+-----------
b | integer |
Check constraints:
"achk" CHECK (false)
"bchk" CHECK (b > 0)

Is this acceptable? Or we need to put in work into psql to show ONLY
somewhere in the description? If yes, ONLY CHECK sounds weird, maybe
we should use LOCAL CHECK or some such mention:

Check constraints:
"achk" LOCAL CHECK (false)
"bchk" CHECK (b > 0)

Regards,
Nikhils

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2011-07-29 12:19:04 Re: Check constraints on partition parents only?
Previous Message Florian Pflug 2011-07-29 09:37:06 Re: XMLATTRIBUTES vs. values of type XML